Khan is not some untranslatable villain. He's Star Trek's most iconic villain from what is still perceived as the best film in the franchise. Why not promote that?

Click to expand...

Perhaps because they already felt that tons of people would see the film anyway based on the success of the previous one, that they decided to keep Khan a secret to actually, you know, have some fun with it

Take Star Wars for example. If Disney decided to revive Darth Vader for episode 7. Do you think they would keep that in their pocket till the film was released or promote the hell out the fact that Darth Vader is returning?

Click to expand...

That's a good question. I suppose it would be the same situation as above: Would they feel that because it's a new SW movie, that that would be enough to get millions of asses in theater seats, or would they need a carrot on a stick to lure them there?

This bit (perhaps reworded to read "For those who'd like to see Abrams' statement in context... ") would have been a good fit in your previous post, in place of the "(obvious, if you don't have an anti-Abrams agenda, I suppose, or if you just learned how to use context clues in elementary school)" part, which wasn't at all essential to the point.

After looking over the box office returns again, I can't really see any reasonable way to regard decisions on how STID was marketed as mistakes, if by a "mistake" one means something that hurt the bottom line. If STID had been a failure or only a marginal success, then second-guessing or Monday morning quarterbacking the marketing campaign might be in order. But given that STID was a success, how one could validly argue that the returns would have been better, if only someone in marketing had done thus and so, is really a mystery to me.

After looking over the box office returns again, I can't really see any reasonable way to regard decisions on how STID was marketed as mistakes, if by a "mistake" one means something that hurt the bottom line. If STID had been a failure or only a marginal success, then second-guessing or Monday morning quarterbacking the marketing campaign might be in order. But given that STID was a success, how one could validly argue that the returns would have been better, if only someone in marketing had done thus and so, is really a mystery to me.

Click to expand...

Likely because as good as STID did, it didn't do as well as many expected it to as a follow up. It did less domestically than the 2009 film, despite having a boost in 3D and IMAX tickets. The fact that Abrams himself regards the marketing strategy in hiding Khan as mistake should tell you something. STID was not a failure, but it's box office run isn't as impressive as other successful franchises and might not be enough for Paramount to want to put out so much money. That's also why there's talks of budgets being lower for the follow up film, because they realize it's not going to make the kind of profit that other franchises like PIRATES, TRANSFORMERS, THE DARK KNIGHT, MARVEL, ect makes.

Would revealing Khan from the get go have changed things? Perhaps, but we'll never really know. Still, it's clearly acknowledged now as a lost opportunity.

After looking over the box office returns again, I can't really see any reasonable way to regard decisions on how STID was marketed as mistakes, if by a "mistake" one means something that hurt the bottom line. If STID had been a failure or only a marginal success, then second-guessing or Monday morning quarterbacking the marketing campaign might be in order. But given that STID was a success, how one could validly argue that the returns would have been better, if only someone in marketing had done thus and so, is really a mystery to me.

Click to expand...

Likely because as good as STID did, it didn't do as well as many expected it to as a follow up. It did less domestically than the 2009 film, despite having a boost in 3D and IMAX tickets. The fact that Abrams himself regards the marketing strategy in hiding Khan as mistake should tell you something. STID was not a failure, but it's box office run isn't as impressive as other successful franchises and might not be enough for Paramount to want to put out so much money. That's also why there's talks of budgets being lower for the follow up film, because they realize it's not going to make the kind of profit that other franchises like PIRATES, TRANSFORMERS, THE DARK KNIGHT, MARVEL, ect makes.

Would revealing Khan from the get go have changed things? Perhaps, but we'll never really know. Still, it's clearly acknowledged now as a lost opportunity.

Click to expand...

Nah.

"Clearly acknowledged now as a lost opportunity" by a vocal minority of self-described hardcore Star Trek fans, perhaps. In a more general way, I don't think so.

I can find no suggestion that Paramount considers it a "lost opportunity." As a matter of fact, in the interview JJ calls it their idea!

Word got out in plenty of time that it was Khan, for that to influence who was going to see it, anyway. The only reason JJ's apologizing is for lying to the hardcore base in the buildup (by denying it was Khan). He pretty much says that. Don't tell me that some of the hardcore fans are mad at themselves for believing him on that account? I didn't! I wasn't as sure it was going to be Khan as a few of the other people on the board were, but boy was it clear that some were really sure it would be Khan all along!

As for the budget for STXIII, there's a whole thread for that. Word is that it's "being lowered" because they can get the same bang outside of the Hollywood area for a smaller buck than they could inside it. That sounds a great way not to waste money. I really doubt that decision will affect the quality of the movie one way or another.

"Clearly acknowledged now as a lost opportunity" by a vocal minority of self-described hardcore Star Trek fans, perhaps. In a more general way, I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Abrams seems to think so, hence referring to the way it was handled as a "mistake". That's from the horse's mouth, not just some vocal minority of self-described hardcore Star Trek fans. I agree with him. Had they been clear it was Khan from the get go, there would have been more hype and publicity over the fact that Benedict Cumberbatch was going to play an iconic villain such as Khan, certainly more than "Cumberbatch will play some guy named John Harrison who terrorizes Starfleet and such". Best case scenario, many folks unfamiliar with Khan would actually be interested in checking out the two stories with Khan, and even better, like them enough to really look forward to the next Trek. Isn't that what all fans want, for everyone to enjoy this franchise we all love?

"Clearly acknowledged now as a lost opportunity" by a vocal minority of self-described hardcore Star Trek fans, perhaps. In a more general way, I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Abrams seems to think so, hence referring to the way it was handled as a "mistake". That's from the horse's mouth, not just some vocal minority of self-described hardcore Star Trek fans. I agree with him. Had they been clear it was Khan from the get go, there would have been more hype and publicity over the fact that Benedict Cumberbatch was going to play an iconic villain such as Khan, certainly more than "Cumberbatch will play some guy named John Harrison who terrorizes Starfleet and such". Best case scenario, many folks unfamiliar with Khan would actually be interested in checking out the two stories with Khan, and even better, like them enough to really look forward to the next Trek. Isn't that what all fans want, for everyone to enjoy this franchise we all love?

Sure, I can bet you anything that it is on his mind. He's a Hollywood producer, he knows Trek is a cash cow, that there's potential profit, and would be a fool to think otherwise. Paramount certainly is.

Sure, I can bet you anything that it is on his mind. He's a Hollywood producer, he knows Trek is a cash cow, that there's potential profit, and would be a fool to think otherwise. Paramount certainly is.

Click to expand...

So, which is it, from the horse's mouth, or that you can bet me anything that it is on his mind?

All I can see, reading between the lines, is that JJ regrets his alienation with a certain part of the hardcore fanbase. Maybe you can point me to where he talks about a "lost opportunity" or says that not revealing Khan earlier cost them domestic market share.

Both. Why would he be so concerned enough to regard it as a mistake because of alienating a certain part of the hardcore fanbase? You'd only regard it as such if it had to do with the big picture. Either way, I'll give him points for acknowledging the choice as a mistake, whether it was his call or Paramount's, they're all guilty of it.

Likely because as good as STID did, it didn't do as well as many expected it to as a follow up. It did less domestically than the 2009 film, despite having a boost in 3D and IMAX tickets. The fact that Abrams himself regards the marketing strategy in hiding Khan as mistake should tell you something. STID was not a failure, but it's box office run isn't as impressive as other successful franchises and might not be enough for Paramount to want to put out so much money. That's also why there's talks of budgets being lower for the follow up film, because they realize it's not going to make the kind of profit that other franchises like PIRATES, TRANSFORMERS, THE DARK KNIGHT, MARVEL, ect makes.

Click to expand...

I think people are missing something: there could simply be a "high end" that Trek movies can be realistically expected to make. That Star Trek will never have the same market appeal as super-hero and fantasy movies.

I agree with that, which is why Paramount can't keep spending such a budget that is usually reserved for those kind of films. Would revealing Khan have shot up the movie to gross a billion dollars? Likely not, but I can't imagine it would have made less than it ended up making. That's my speculation, but one I stand by. Paramount shouldn't be intimidated by Trek being too "niche" with stuff like Khan of all things. It implies they're not too confident about their brand, which can't be true given the generous budgets that the older films never dreamed of getting.

So instead, Paramount chose to angle their promotion of the film omitting that little tidbit. There's nothing wrong with that. It makes pefect sense that Paramount would want as many butts in the theaters and as many eyeballs on those screens because means the picture is selling tickets. Why this is such a complex issue to comprehend is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Thing is, the reason they chose Khan is because it's "what everyone wanted." You'd think if you're going to include "what everyone wanted" in the movie, you'd want to promote the hell out of it, not keep it a secret. Hell, at the very least they could have made John Harrison the renegade Starfleet officer public a lot sooner than they did.

I guarantee you, hearing "the Enterprise crew fights Khan" or "the Enterprise crew fights a renegade Starfleet officer" makes the movie sound a lot more exciting than "the Enterprise crew fights someone."

Eh, I had lots of "average movie going Fans' come up to me, knowing I am a SciFi Geek asking me if it was Khan. So, I think the Rumor mill got it out there, and built up the "Is it or isn't it, watch the film to find out" hype. I don't really believe a straight out "It's Khan" Marketing campaign would've worked any better for the General audience, and I don't believe a sizable chunk of the hardcore fans stayed away from or went to see the film based upon wether they thought Khan was in it or not.

So instead, Paramount chose to angle their promotion of the film omitting that little tidbit. There's nothing wrong with that. It makes pefect sense that Paramount would want as many butts in the theaters and as many eyeballs on those screens because means the picture is selling tickets. Why this is such a complex issue to comprehend is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Thing is, the reason they chose Khan is because it's "what everyone wanted." You'd think if you're going to include "what everyone wanted" in the movie, you'd want to promote the hell out of it, not keep it a secret. Hell, at the very least they could have made John Harrison the renegade Starfleet officer public a lot sooner than they did.

I guarantee you, hearing "the Enterprise crew fights Khan" or "the Enterprise crew fights a renegade Starfleet officer" makes the movie sound a lot more exciting than "the Enterprise crew fights someone."

Click to expand...

The nerd rage and foaming at the mouth about this movie got to be ridiculous, and I knew, I just KNEW the minute I saw that article pop up on Pajiba that someone would post it here and (whether intentionally or not) misconstrue JJ's quote. I was not advocating that it was a better or ideal way to promote the film. I was attempting to point out the oversight by the OP's insinuation that this was all done to "snub" longtime Trek fans. That's all.

That's the annoying thing. Hollywood thinks their audience is stupid. Maybe they are only projecting and they themselves are stupid.

The irony is that, since Khan was a secret, people went to see Cumberbatch as John Harrison. Yes, they actually wanted to see an original villain, because you advertised the film that way, you fools! There was absolutely no financial benefit in having Khan in this.

Anyone who seriously thought that John Harrison was just going to be John Harrison was an idiot. From the first time I hear of the the serious inclusion of the Botonay Bay post credits scene that they were going with Khan in the second movie.

Not only did it only make the most sense in the world, all of their rumored casting choices gave it away, even when they went with a less obvious choice, everything was pointing to Khan. If nobody figured it out by the time the first teaser came well before the actual film, and they still thought it wasn't going to be Khan then they deserved to be let down.

Seriously, it was a very poorly kept secret. Most people just seemed to be in some kind of denial about it.